Rolling Stone writer: Hernandez will be acquitted, return to NFL

Posted by Michael David Smith on August 29, 2013, 11:03 AM EDT

Getty Images

The author of the much-discussed Rolling Stone profile of Aaron Hernandez believes that prosecutors lack the evidence to convict him of first-degree murder, and that Hernandez will eventually return to the NFL.

Rolling Stone contributing editor Paul Solotaroff said on the Doug Gottlieb Show that he doubts prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hernandez murdered Odin Lloyd.

“I think [the case] is not only beatable, I think he will be back in the NFL within three or four years,” Solotaroff said. “I think they’ve grossly overcharged him based on the case they’re building – no direct eye witness, no murder weapon, no plausible motive.”

Solotaroff wrote a fine magazine story about Hernandez, but he seems to be going beyond the purview of his own reporting when he suggests that the prosecution’s case is weak. In his own magazine piece, Solotaroff lays out much of the case: Text messages confirm that Lloyd told his sister that he was with Hernandez, in a manner that suggested he was scared of what Hernandez might do to him, just before Lloyd was killed. Security cameras showed a heated exchange between Hernandez and Lloyd. Hernandez’s own home security footage shows him ranting and raving about how you can’t trust anyone after his exchange with Lloyd, and shows him holding the kind of gun that prosecutors say was used to kill Lloyd. Tire tracks near Lloyd’s body match the tires of the rental car Hernandez was driving.

As for the lack of an eye witness, one of the two people who was with Hernandez and Lloyd on the night Lloyd was killed, Carlos Ortiz, has reportedly cooperated extensively with police. That cooperation apparently stops short of saying that Ortiz actually saw Hernandez kill Lloyd, as Ortiz claims he stayed in the car when the shooting happened. But Ortiz reportedly told police that the other man who was with them that night, Ernest Wallace, left the car they were in with Hernandez and Lloyd, that shots were fired, and that when Hernandez and Wallace returned, Wallace told Ortiz that Hernandez shot Lloyd.

Solotaroff does believe that prosecutors have enough enough evidence to convict Hernandez of weapons charges that could put him in prison for three years. So even Solotaroff doesn’t think Hernandez is going to be a free man soon. But Solotaroff is a whole lot more optimistic about Hernandez’s future than most people who have looked at the case.

As much as I agree that NFL owners will let almost anyone with any kind of a background play for their team if they can make a big enough impact, even if acquitted, the circumstantial evidence of this case along with the other possible violent criminal activity also coming out, I don't see Hernandez back in the NFL.

The only thing missing is the gun at this point and they have so much evidence surrounding everything else even if it's a point the finger situation they will get him on something. Those gun charges are 3 years per charge which he has 6 I believe. It's true the judge can have him serve them together but if the judge feels strongly that he did commit murder or was part of the murder he can have Hernandez serve them back to back which would be 18yrs. Either way I doubt any team (even the Jets) would want to take on that type of PR and headache. Even for a min deal. 3 yrs in the NFL is a lifetime

The only thing missing is the gun at this point and they have so much evidence surrounding everything else even if it's a point the finger situation they will get him on something. Those gun charges are 3 years per charge which he has 6 I believe. It's true the judge can have him serve them together but if the judge feels strongly that he did commit murder or was part of the murder he can have Hernandez serve them back to back which would be 18yrs. Either way I doubt any team (even the Jets) would want to take on that type of PR and headache. Even for a min deal. 3 yrs in the NFL is a lifetime

I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

It will be an interesting case if they don't find the weapon; whether witness testimony and circumstantial evidence is enough. Some folks only heard that AH pulled the trigger, but did NOT witness it. In addition, that one witness may have cut a deal to protect himself and willing to say anything to stay out of jail.

Ortiz's statement is inadmissable because it's hearsay. The DA has to cut a deal with Wallace to say he saw Hernandez kill Lloyd. I doubt that will be much of a problem.

Present Sense Impression. "A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter," is admissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 803(1)).

if acquitted, I'm betting that an NFL team would be willing to sign him.

After he is acquitted where it is perceived he "beat the rap" but actually murdered the guy? After 3-4 years served (out of the game) on a gun charge? I don't see any team wanting to take the heat that would bring for a "maybe" guy that hasn't played in years.

Present Sense Impression."A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter," is admissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 803(1)).

Babe, the Federal present sense impression exception has not been adopted in Massachusetts so under Massachusetts law that statement cannot be used. Good try though.

Unfortunately for prosecutors, Massachusetts is among the minority of States that has not adopted the present sense impression hearsay exception. So the text is not coming in through that exception in a Massachusetts court, where Hernandez appears headed. (The statement could be admitted in federal court in Massachusetts under the Federal Rules of Evidence.)

That said: 1) AH has a top legal team who can out maneuver the best of DA's; 2) Ortiz is a drug addict and would say anything; 3) There is speculation that Wallace was the trigger man but shifted the blame to AH; 4) it is possible neither Wallace or AH will testify against each other leaving the DA in a quandry; 5) it is possible the DA overcharged AH and accessory may been a better charge; 6) Sentencing AH to multiple consecutive terms on weapons charges would violate commonly accepted practices and would be reason for appeal.

That said: No team, not even the Bengals, Cowboys, Raiders or even the Jets will want to take the risk and PR nightmare of a potential murderer on to their team. (Although the Ravens did rehab Ray Ray). Corporate America would not accept it. Finally, although America loves a good redemption story (Michael Vick etc.), let's remember that even though OJ was not convicted, he never appeared on TV again as a sponsor/announcer.

What I see if there is no confession: charges being modified to accessory or a deal being made.

Unfortunately for prosecutors, Massachusetts is among the minority of States that has not adopted the present sense impression hearsay exception. So the text is not coming in through that exception in a Massachusetts court, where Hernandez appears headed. (The statement could be admitted in federal court in Massachusetts under the Federal Rules of Evidence.)

That to which you refer is about the text messages, not about statements occurring immediatly after the event.

From Mass Law notes (Section 803):

"The proponent of the evidence is not required to show that the spontaneous utterance qualifies, characterizes, or explains the underlying event as long as the court is satisfied that the statement was the product of a startling event and not the result of conscious reflection. See Commonwealth v. Santiago, 437 Mass. at 624–627, 774 N.E.2d at 147–148.

“[T]he nexus between the statement and the event that produced it is but one of many factors to consider in determining whether the declarant was, in fact, under the sway of the exciting event when she made the statement. . . .”

The person making the statement was not recalling something that happened 2 weeks before. It was within minutes of the event.

I have forgotten more about the law that this fool Solotaroff has ever known. AH will never see the light of day again. Write it down. My only question is why do folks still read Rolling Stone after they glorified a terrorist that attacked our city?

Unfortunately for prosecutors, Massachusetts is among the minority of States that has not adopted the present sense impression hearsay exception. So the text is not coming in through that exception in a Massachusetts court, where Hernandez appears headed. (The statement could be admitted in federal court in Massachusetts under the Federal Rules of Evidence.)

That to which you refer is about the text messages, not about statements occurring immediatly after the event.

From Mass Law notes (Section 803):

"The proponent of the evidence is not required to show that the spontaneous utterance qualifies, characterizes, or explains the underlying event as long as the court is satisfied that the statement was the product of a startling event and not the result of conscious reflection. See Commonwealth v. Santiago, 437 Mass. at 624–627, 774 N.E.2d at 147–148.

“[T]he nexus between the statement and the event that produced it is but one of many factors to consider in determining whether the declarant was, in fact, under the sway of the exciting event when she made the statement. . . .”

The person making the statement was not recalling something that happened 2 weeks before. It was within minutes of the event.

I posted those to show you what you used, present sense impression,in that post is NOT a hearsay exception in Massachusetts. So first you were wrong about that Babe not that you would ever admit that.

Now you are coming back and calling it an excited or spontaneous utterance.

Unfortunately what happened is that Wallace told Ortiz that Hernandez told him that he shot Lloyd. That's actually called 'double hearsay'. Check the web, that's what actually was said.

Hernandez told pal Ernest Wallace that he shot Odin L. Lloyd, 27, in an industrial park near Hernandez’s sprawling North Attleboro manse on June 17, according to a police interview with another Hernandez associate, Carlos Ortiz. The statement appeared in documents filed in a Florida court by the Miramar, Fla., police department, to justify a search of Wallace’s home there

Ortiz claims Wallace told him that Hernandez confided in him (Wallace) that he shot Lloyd. Ortiz's statement is "double hearsay."

The ruling on it's admissability will hinge on whether the State can convince the Judge that Wallace and Hernandez were in a joint venture to murder Lloyd. The Judge will have to rule that what Ortiz states that Wallace to him constitutes a statement made in furtherance of the goal of joint venture.

Section 801

(d) Statements Which Are Not Hearsay. The following statements are not hearsay and are admissible for the truth of the matter asserted:

(2) Admission by Party-Opponent. The following statements offered against a party are not excluded by the hearsay rule:

(E) A statement of a coconspirator or joint venturer made during the pendency of the cooperative effort and in furtherance of its goal when the existence of the conspiracy or joint venture is shown by evidence independent of the statement.

Ortiz may never come to the stand to testify about his statement because he could be incriminating himself. The Defense can ask him whatever they want once he's on the stand.So can he say testifying may incriminate him. If he doesn't testify that's a problem because you have the right to face your accuser in court.

For all anyone here knows Ortiz could have pulled the trigger and made it up. What happens if Wallace and Hernandez say Ortiz shot him?

Ortiz may never come to the stand to testify about his statement because he could be incriminating himself. The Defense can ask him whatever they want once he's on the stand.So can he say testifying may incriminate him. If he doesn't testify that's a problem because you have the right to face your accuser in court.

For all anyone here knows Ortiz could have pulled the trigger and made it up. What happens if Wallace and Hernandez say Ortiz shot him?

This is precisely the point. What if Wallace and AH say that Ortiz shot Lloyd?

The point is this case is not a lock tight conviction against AH. The DA is arrogant and self-righteous. That can work for you or against you. When you are battling against a top flight legal team in Massachusetts with an educated population it is going to work against you. Don't bet against AH getting off on the murder charge and copping a plea to a lesser charge!

Unfortunately for prosecutors, Massachusetts is among the minority of States that has not adopted the present sense impression hearsay exception. So the text is not coming in through that exception in a Massachusetts court, where Hernandez appears headed. (The statement could be admitted in federal court in Massachusetts under the Federal Rules of Evidence.)

That to which you refer is about the text messages, not about statements occurring immediatly after the event.

From Mass Law notes (Section 803):

"The proponent of the evidence is not required to show that the spontaneous utterance qualifies, characterizes, or explains the underlying event as long as the court is satisfied that the statement was the product of a startling event and not the result of conscious reflection. See Commonwealth v. Santiago, 437 Mass. at 624–627, 774 N.E.2d at 147–148.

“[T]he nexus between the statement and the event that produced it is but one of many factors to consider in determining whether the declarant was, in fact, under the sway of the exciting event when she made the statement. . . .”

The person making the statement was not recalling something that happened 2 weeks before. It was within minutes of the event.

I posted those to show you what you used, present sense impression,in that post is NOT a hearsay exception in Massachusetts. So first you were wrong about that Babe not that you would ever admit that.

Of course I was wrong. I cited a federal standard. I assumed. My bad. I appreciate your clarification on my erroneous reference. I have no problem with admitting I'm wrong. I've done that a dozen times here at least. Unlike some.

Out of curiosity I simply referenced Mass law and posted what I found which seemed pertinent in reply. I thought my error of assumption was obvious from your post and therefore didn't need to be acknowledged. Happy now?

I'll bet the farm that AH never sees the light of day again. NFL? NFW!!

I have to agree with you...the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming...the jury will be selected here, not anywehere else, and this clown writing for Rolling Stone got most of his information about evidence in the case from the Hernandez defense team and Borges (who also got his from the Hernandez defense team and family)...the Rolling Stone and their writers were used by the defense team to get their view of the case out to the public. Hernandez is a hated man in MA...he'll be found guilty and never get out of jail...

I have forgotten more about the law that this fool Solotaroff has ever known. AH will never see the light of day again. Write it down. My only question is why do folks still read Rolling Stone after they glorified a terrorist that attacked our city?

"Giggedy, Giggedy!"

Nope...rarely cared what was in it before the murdering punk from Kurgistan, now I wouldn't use it to keep warm if lost in the woods.

Unfortunately for prosecutors, Massachusetts is among the minority of States that has not adopted the present sense impression hearsay exception. So the text is not coming in through that exception in a Massachusetts court, where Hernandez appears headed. (The statement could be admitted in federal court in Massachusetts under the Federal Rules of Evidence.)

That to which you refer is about the text messages, not about statements occurring immediatly after the event.

From Mass Law notes (Section 803):

"The proponent of the evidence is not required to show that the spontaneous utterance qualifies, characterizes, or explains the underlying event as long as the court is satisfied that the statement was the product of a startling event and not the result of conscious reflection. See Commonwealth v. Santiago, 437 Mass. at 624–627, 774 N.E.2d at 147–148.

“[T]he nexus between the statement and the event that produced it is but one of many factors to consider in determining whether the declarant was, in fact, under the sway of the exciting event when she made the statement. . . .”

The person making the statement was not recalling something that happened 2 weeks before. It was within minutes of the event.

I posted those to show you what you used, present sense impression,in that post is NOT a hearsay exception in Massachusetts. So first you were wrong about that Babe not that you would ever admit that.

Of course I was wrong. I cited a federal standard. I assumed. My bad. I appreciate your clarification on my erroneous reference. I have no problem with admitting I'm wrong. I've done that a dozen times here at least. Unlike some.

Out of curiosity I simply referenced Mass law and posted what I found which seemed pertinent in reply. I thought my error of assumption was obvious from your post and therefore didn't need to be acknowledged. Happy now?

Sorry Babe for saying you wouldn't admit you were wrong. I was wrong saying that.

This will be an interesting case because Hernandez has decent attorneys who know their way around law books. I'll wager he's paying something towards Wallace's defense too.